| Author | Thread |
|
|
11/07/2016 11:26:53 AM · #1 |
My score is about where I expected.
Votes: 6
Views: 22
Avg Vote: 5.1667 |
|
|
|
11/07/2016 11:35:19 AM · #2 |
I was sooo excited about this one - I loved (and still love) it. It's been in for over a week. I could hardly wait for roll-over. But today? Not so much. It started low (for my expectations) and has continued to drop. Oh well.
Votes: 7
Views: 22
Avg Vote: 5.1429 |
|
|
|
11/07/2016 09:03:18 PM · #3 |
Originally posted by nam:
I was sooo excited about this one - I loved (and still love) it. It's been in for over a week. I could hardly wait for roll-over. But today? Not so much. It started low (for my expectations) and has continued to drop. Oh well.
|
There are a BUNCH of really astonishingly good images in this challenge. Not many of them, to me, are Impressionism images.
Maybe I don't understand Impressionism.
I thought it was a piece of art that doesn't clearly show something... but... only give an "impression" of it to your eyes and your brain fills in the rest.
|
|
|
|
11/07/2016 09:34:40 PM · #4 |
|
|
|
11/07/2016 10:04:04 PM · #5 |
Originally posted by Lydia:
Originally posted by nam:
I was sooo excited about this one - I loved (and still love) it. It's been in for over a week. I could hardly wait for roll-over. But today? Not so much. It started low (for my expectations) and has continued to drop. Oh well.
|
There are a BUNCH of really astonishingly good images in this challenge. Not many of them, to me, are Impressionism images.
Maybe I don't understand Impressionism.
I thought it was a piece of art that doesn't clearly show something... but... only give an "impression" of it to your eyes and your brain fills in the rest. |
I think you're confusing Abstract with Impressionism. Think of the impressionistic painters like Monet and Van Gogh. They did not paint abstracts (most of the time).
Wikipedia perhaps says it best: "Impressionism is a 19th-century art movement characterized by relatively small, thin, yet visible brush strokes, open composition, emphasis on accurate depiction of light in its changing qualities (often accentuating the effects of the passage of time), ordinary subject matter, inclusion of movement as a crucial element of human perception and experience, and unusual visual angles. Impressionism originated with a group of Paris-based artists whose independent exhibitions brought them to prominence during the 1870s and 1880s.
Or look up the work by Freeman Patterson for insights on photoimpressionism. He wrote a very good book (and all his books are inspiring.) Did you try Photo Impressionism (search)?
Message edited by author 2016-11-07 22:16:29. |
|
|
|
11/07/2016 11:49:57 PM · #6 |
my impression is thin and small
It's also bad...
Votes: 16
Views: 37
Avg Vote: 4.8125
Comments: 0
Yet as expected LOL |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 08:56:52 AM · #7 |
My score has gone up, although not many votes so far.
Votes: 16
Views: 45
Avg Vote: 5.6875
Comments: 0
I Googled Impressionism before I entered. I agree with Deb that a lot of the entries do not fit with what Google showed me. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 09:43:07 AM · #8 |
I googled it, too, out of curiosity--
The Impressionists incorporated new scientific research into the physics of color to achieve a more exact representation of color and tone. The look of these paintings was brought about by a change in methodology: applying paint in small touches of pure color rather than broader strokes, and painting out of doors to catch a particular fleeting impression of color and light.
The result was to emphasize the artist’s perception of the subject matter as much as the subject itself.
**
Impressionist photography how-to info on the internet seems to emphasize Photoshop "tricks." I think this is because impressionism is not photographic in nature. A camera can't capture small touches of pure color any more than it can capture the photographer's perception of the subject matter. That's all up to the photographer, & the PP used. The most we can hope for, I think, is to capture the look of an impressionist painting as seem from across the room.
Given the challenges of the challenge, I think people gave the voter more interesting choices than I expected. I'm in the looking phase right now. Voting later. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 10:35:17 AM · #9 |
I'm a bit confused about this challenge too, it seems to me that a lot of the impressionism effects have been added in the post processing stage - please correct me if I'm wrong. If this is indeed the case, then I don't understand the difference between standard and extended editing.
Extended editing says you may "use any feature of image processing software to manipulate/enhance the images in your submission", while standard editing only really mentions cloning out unwanted objects and filling gaps.
So I thought we couldn't use editing software to achieve the impressionism effect?
If I'm wrong and actually these impressionism effects were all achived prior to processing, then I'd be interested to learn how they were done, hopefully we'll get some nice write ups. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 11:21:41 AM · #10 |
| There is no longer any specific restriction on the use of filters and plug-ins with Standard Editing. It had gotten to the point, in the earlier Advanced Editing, that we just had too many "gray areas" to debate over in validation. The Standard Editing ruleset leaves that judgement (of how much is "too much") to the voters. So when we have a challenge like this one, Impressionism, it's sort of to be expected that we'll see a lot of fairly extreme filter usage. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 12:33:52 PM · #11 |
Votes: 19
Views: 42
Avg Vote: 5.2632
Comments: 0
Favorites: 0
|
|
|
|
11/08/2016 02:45:12 PM · #12 |
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There is no longer any specific restriction on the use of filters and plug-ins with Standard Editing. It had gotten to the point, in the earlier Advanced Editing, that we just had too many "gray areas" to debate over in validation. The Standard Editing ruleset leaves that judgement (of how much is "too much") to the voters. So when we have a challenge like this one, Impressionism, it's sort of to be expected that we'll see a lot of fairly extreme filter usage. |
I don't understand how a relative newcomer like myself could tell from the standard editing guidelines that a filter would be allowed. I'm not really complaining, as I'm happy with my photo and wouldn't change it, but would be good to have a better grasp of the rules for future challenges. I've had a search through the forums to see if there has been a general rules clarification discussion already but I can't see one, if someone could direct me to one I'd much appreciate it :)
|
|
|
|
11/08/2016 02:52:41 PM · #13 |
Originally posted by theicequeen:
Originally posted by Bear_Music:
There is no longer any specific restriction on the use of filters and plug-ins with Standard Editing. It had gotten to the point, in the earlier Advanced Editing, that we just had too many "gray areas" to debate over in validation. The Standard Editing ruleset leaves that judgement (of how much is "too much") to the voters. So when we have a challenge like this one, Impressionism, it's sort of to be expected that we'll see a lot of fairly extreme filter usage. |
I don't understand how a relative newcomer like myself could tell from the standard editing guidelines that a filter would be allowed. I'm not really complaining, as I'm happy with my photo and wouldn't change it, but would be good to have a better grasp of the rules for future challenges. I've had a search through the forums to see if there has been a general rules clarification discussion already but I can't see one, if someone could direct me to one I'd much appreciate it :) |
welcome to DPC!
often there are pre-challenge discussions, and for Impressionism, the exact question you are asking was brought up, then answered
Impressionism III challenge
hope this helps....
-mark
Message edited by author 2016-11-08 14:53:56. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 03:29:41 PM · #14 |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 03:57:00 PM · #15 |
I've had enough. Just like the tilt shift embarassment, this contest should have been about photographic techniques, but for a large number of entrants has obviously become entirely about slapping on a crap photoshop filter instead. We all know that in previous standard rules, creating elements in photoshop and moving things around with such a filter would never have been allowed. Now it's used as a crutch in place of photographic creativity. Incidentally, it wouldn't surprise me if these are the same people who keep crying out against minimal challenges, saying "oh but you can enter with minimal editing in every challenge!".
theicequeen above is obviously being polite, but you are clearly alienating (preciously rare) new blood by shifting the goalposts and redefining what classic photographic techniques are really about, to allow cheap photoshop shams instead.
It's pathetic, and my sympathy for the degenerate state of this site has run out.
I want DPC to be a photography challenge site. I joined this as a photography challenge site, I've been supporting it as a photography challenge site by paying my membership fee for twelve years and so I damn well have a right to have a say in that. I'm not going to storm off and leave the site - but I'm going to vote accordingly, and from now on pure-photoshop garbage will be punished severely. And I doubt I'm the only one who feels this way about the site's direction - so I encourage anyone else who wants DPC to still be a photography challenge site to vote likewise.
If the site council really want to run the contests this way, then rename the site PhotoshopChallenge and be done with it. Meanwhile, this is my public protest.
Message edited by author 2016-11-08 16:43:42.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2016 04:02:18 PM · #16 |
My new scoring system:
* Anything that relies on a photoshop technique or filter to convey its core message is scored on a scale from 0 to 4.
* Everything that does not is scored on a scale of 5 to 10.
The worst possible score that any photograph can get from me, if it doesn't rely on photoshop, is now 5. The best possible score any artwork can get from me, no matter how magnificent, if it relies primarily on photoshop to produce its message, is a 4.
Anyone else who feels that the recent trend in editing and techniques has become an increasing joke is encouraged to take up this system or a similar system.
|
|
|
|
11/08/2016 04:39:44 PM · #17 |
| I'm posting the original in the Notes on my entry. That way a comparison can be made & a judgment rendered if I have relied on photoshop alone to make my point. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 04:47:27 PM · #18 |
| Sometimes it can look much more Photoshop than what it really is... |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 04:48:59 PM · #19 |
Originally posted by pixelpig:
I'm posting the original in the Notes on my entry. That way a comparison can be made & a judgment rendered if I have relied on photoshop alone to make my point. |
Good idea. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 05:15:59 PM · #20 |
Originally posted by riot:
My new scoring system:
* Anything that relies on a photoshop technique or filter to convey its core message is scored on a scale from 0 to 4.
* Everything that does not is scored on a scale of 5 to 10. |
Well, a 5 will raise my average score so thanks -- assuming you can tell I didn't "convey its core message" using Photoshop ... |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 05:34:33 PM · #21 |
Originally posted by riot:
My new scoring system:
* Anything that relies on a photoshop technique or filter to convey its core message is scored on a scale from 0 to 4.
* Everything that does not is scored on a scale of 5 to 10.
The worst possible score that any photograph can get from me, if it doesn't rely on photoshop, is now 5. The best possible score any artwork can get from me, no matter how magnificent, if it relies primarily on photoshop to produce its message, is a 4.
Anyone else who feels that the recent trend in editing and techniques has become an increasing joke is encouraged to take up this system or a similar system. |
well, thanks for your 1 on my entry... it was NOT a "crappy Photoshop filter", as i do not use, nor even own, PS. it was the combination of multiple adjustments and filters, using multiple programs, and took multiple tries to get to what i felt represented the "impressionist" look. so you apparently cannot even tell what a "crappy Photoshop filter" looks like.
furthermore, what do you expect when you are trying to replicate a PAINTING STYLE using photography... you have to do something to get the brushstroke look. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 05:40:52 PM · #22 |
Originally posted by mefnj:
Originally posted by riot:
My new scoring system:
* Anything that relies on a photoshop technique or filter to convey its core message is scored on a scale from 0 to 4.
* Everything that does not is scored on a scale of 5 to 10.
The worst possible score that any photograph can get from me, if it doesn't rely on photoshop, is now 5. The best possible score any artwork can get from me, no matter how magnificent, if it relies primarily on photoshop to produce its message, is a 4.
Anyone else who feels that the recent trend in editing and techniques has become an increasing joke is encouraged to take up this system or a similar system. |
well, thanks for your 1 on my entry... it was NOT a "crappy Photoshop filter", as i do not use, nor even own, PS. it was the combination of multiple adjustments and filters, using multiple programs, and took multiple tries to get to what i felt represented the "impressionist" look. so you apparently cannot even tell what a "crappy Photoshop filter" looks like.
furthermore, what do you expect when you are trying to replicate a PAINTING STYLE using photography... you have to do something to get the brushstroke look. |
Well I googled it, and found this site:
//digital-photography-school.com/5-impressionist-photo-techniques/
I tried a few of those techniques and they worked for me.
Also whenever someone talks about photoshop I assume it is really a blanket term for photo editing software.
Message edited by author 2016-11-08 17:45:16. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 05:45:53 PM · #23 |
The challenge description should've stated NO filters what so ever! Then I would've tried to emulate an impressionistic photo in camera. But slapping ones on photos that used filters is completely unfair, and not mention arrogant, plus also uses an element of assumption also!
Message edited by author 2016-11-08 17:47:28. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 06:02:10 PM · #24 |
There seems to be a disconnect between what the editing guidelines say, and what is actually understood by the regulars on the site. As a newcomer, I looked at the rules and it made no mention of filters, and so I assumed they weren't allowed. On re-reading the guidelines for standard and extended editing, I stand by those assumptions and I don't think a newcomer could possibly know a filter was allowed.
I know now, that there is often a discussion thread where the rules for each challenge are interpreted amongst members - but I don't think there actually was any ambiguity in the guidelines. I've seen challenges before which had additional rules, and this wasn't one of them. It would make sense to me if there was an extra rule that said "by the way, filters are okay", but not the other way around. |
|
|
|
11/08/2016 06:26:47 PM · #25 |
Originally posted by Neat:
The challenge description should've stated NO filters what so ever! Then I would've tried to emulate an impressionistic photo in camera. But slapping ones on photos that used filters is completely unfair, and not mention arrogant, plus also uses an element of assumption also! |
I tried that exact thing for Impressionism II & still got a low score! No filters=bad. Filters =bad. And yet somehow I still live. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/16/2024 01:16:21 PM EDT.
